Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Fare dodging hedge fund manager. Right or wrong to let him off?

123457»

Comments

  • cabbles said:

    Access to the railway - private property - should be by permit. Was there not a system yonks ago where, in the unavailability of a working ticket office/machine you had to take a little token to prove where you boarded and your right therefore to be on the railway?


    I'm pretty sure this still exists.

    I remember those, but I think they got phased out when oyster came into play.
    Also what I like is that slowly this turning into a thread of Charlton fans talking about trains, fares and rail travel...........

  • This wasn't a one off. It was a plan to defraud every single day. Not just the institution but every commuter who does pay and ultimately has to make up the shortfall through increased fares.

    So, with that evidence to hand, would you trust him with your money? You have your life savings of £40K and you want someone to invest. You know that this guy has been nicking money over a period of years. Hand on heart, would you hand that cheque over?

    If you aren't going to trust him, how do you expect the Regulatory body who is acting on our behalf to do so?

    He knew exactly what he was doing. He was earning millions and probably still has millions. Sympathy? I'll be saving it for those that deserve it and frankly I think he's lucky he didn't get a custodial sentence.

    And here endeth the first lesson.

    Amen.
  • cabbles said:

    Access to the railway - private property - should be by permit. Was there not a system yonks ago where, in the unavailability of a working ticket office/machine you had to take a little token to prove where you boarded and your right therefore to be on the railway?


    I'm pretty sure this still exists.

    I remember those, but I think they got phased out when oyster came into play.
    Permit to travel. They still exist and they have one at Stonegate station.
  • cabbles said:

    Access to the railway - private property - should be by permit. Was there not a system yonks ago where, in the unavailability of a working ticket office/machine you had to take a little token to prove where you boarded and your right therefore to be on the railway?


    I'm pretty sure this still exists.

    I remember those, but I think they got phased out when oyster came into play.
    Permit to travel. They still exist and they have one at Stonegate station.
    Problem solved then. Certainly on a commuter train, in the absence of proof of boarding, you are deemed to have boarded at the train's origin. Oyster schmoyster!! No-one who travels regularly needs to be without a ticket, either a pre-paid season or else booked on-line. Payment on arrival - the full daily single fare. Time taken to process excess fares - as long as possible, including proof of home address and details of employer. Enormous queues of ne'er-do-wells (faredowells?) would soon dwindle when folks realised they were wasting only their own time. And don't think that you can paddle up from deepest wherever to High Brooms one quiet Sunday to pick up a fistful of permits - each should be prominently time/date-stamped.

    So: ticket-free access is possible - at a price - but make Cannon Street tighter than Colditz. Why should the transport folks worry about a tougher line on fare evasion upsetting their customers - commuters start each day already oven-ready offended. The principle must be - most DO pay, all MUST pay. (Finally, as it's nearly Xmas, put MoG's naughty boys on the firm and clamp some sense into these fare-dodgers! Well, maybe not ....) Just make it all not worth the effort or the risk. Don't make it so easy - make it a real challenge instead. Fare-box fraud is no small industry - whatever the hapless cheminots say, there's a significant amount of money in play.

    A last thought, perhaps something the insurance boys might be able to answer - if you enter railway property without valid authority are you essentially uninsured?
  • I work in the care sector and if I were found guilty of abuse in any way shape or form I would be barred from my profession for life. This man has committed a financial crime and works in the financial sector surely the same rules should apply. He deserved what he has got

    When you say he committed a 'financial crime' is that because he failed to pay for something with money? I don't consider traveling without a ticket as a financial crime if you intend to use the word to compare it to the financial sector. If you are going to make that link than the girl that works on the checkout at Waitrose is also working in the financial sector - where as she, clearly, is not.

    Suggesting that someone with such low integrity shouldn't be allowed to be an approved person under the FCA rules is one thing, but to suggest that running a train service is in any way related to managing pension funds is just ridiculous!
  • I work in the care sector and if I were found guilty of abuse in any way shape or form I would be barred from my profession for life. This man has committed a financial crime and works in the financial sector surely the same rules should apply. He deserved what he has got

    When you say he committed a 'financial crime' is that because he failed to pay for something with money? I don't consider traveling without a ticket as a financial crime if you intend to use the word to compare it to the financial sector. If you are going to make that link than the girl that works on the checkout at Waitrose is also working in the financial sector - where as she, clearly, is not.

    Suggesting that someone with such low integrity shouldn't be allowed to be an approved person under the FCA rules is one thing, but to suggest that running a train service is in any way related to managing pension funds is just ridiculous!
    Clearly what he means is that this bloke committed a crime for "financial benefit" rather than a violent/driving/sexual offence which may or may not be directly related to his line of work and therefore may or may not impact on his suitability to continue working in that environment.

    He was happy to commit a pecuniary offence for many years and I really can't see why it's a surprise to anyone he has been disabled from working with other peoples money tbh.
  • Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.

    Are you for real?

    Yes. Quite.

    Why shouldn't he work again?

    I get the fact that he's got loads of money and a couple of expensive properties so may not actually need to work and i accept that he's been pretty arrogant with his comments since but i still don't think he should be deprived of the chance to work in his industry any more. Let's face it his crime is something that probably 90% of people on this forum have done at some point in their life, he just did it over a long period. It's only because he's rich that people are in any way bothered
    Chris, you really shouldn't judge everyone by your own standards. No way would 90% of people on this forum have fare dodged at some time or another.


    I think if we put it to a vote you'd probably be surprised. You're telling me that throughout your life, on every single bus, train, tube journey you've ever made you've always had a valid ticket? If so, you are a saint.

    Even Charlton station on a match day is rarely manned by a ticket collector, you can't tell me that everyone passing through there for a home game before or after a match has a ticket.
    since the age of 17 the only time I have used public transport is the train to work. I have ALWAYS had a valid ticket. Doesn't make me a saint, and I've never claimed to be, but in case you were not aware you need a ticket to travel on public transport so I ensure I buy a ticket.

  • I have undoubtedly, at some time in the last 25 years, avoided a fare if it was clear I could get away with it. The Waterloo East to Charlton line being the most likely candidate.

    I have also driven over the speed limit, gone through a red light, swore in public, been drunk and disorderly, had naughty thoughts about someone else's wife and dropped litter - not all at the same time obviously, I'm not an animal....

    #hangmehigh
  • PL54 said:

    I have undoubtedly, at some time in the last 25 years, avoided a fare if it was clear I could get away with it. The Waterloo East to Charlton line being the most likely candidate.

    I have also driven over the speed limit, gone through a red light, swore in public, been drunk and disorderly, had naughty thoughts about someone else's wife and dropped litter - not all at the same time obviously, I'm not an animal....

    #hangmehigh

    I presume those were all after we conceded the equaliser against Blackpool
  • PL54 said:

    I have undoubtedly, at some time in the last 25 years, avoided a fare if it was clear I could get away with it. The Waterloo East to Charlton line being the most likely candidate.

    I have also driven over the speed limit, gone through a red light, swore in public, been drunk and disorderly, had naughty thoughts about someone else's wife and dropped litter - not all at the same time obviously, I'm not an animal....

    #hangmehigh

    I presume those were all after we conceded the equaliser against Blackpool
    Yes they were, and I was at home at the time
  • Sponsored links:


  • Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.

    Are you for real?

    Yes. Quite.

    Why shouldn't he work again?

    I get the fact that he's got loads of money and a couple of expensive properties so may not actually need to work and i accept that he's been pretty arrogant with his comments since but i still don't think he should be deprived of the chance to work in his industry any more. Let's face it his crime is something that probably 90% of people on this forum have done at some point in their life, he just did it over a long period. It's only because he's rich that people are in any way bothered
    Chris, you really shouldn't judge everyone by your own standards. No way would 90% of people on this forum have fare dodged at some time or another.
    You'd be surprised what us low-moraled youngsters are capable of Large.

  • Or how many free trips up north in our youth were done by dodging the fare
  • Not as if he paid for child porn as part of his 'research' into a book.

    Imagine if someone did that, say a famous guitarist. Bet they would lose their job and be castigated on here.
  • MrOneLung said:

    Not as if he paid for child porn as part of his 'research' into a book.

    Imagine if someone did that, say a famous guitarist. Bet they would lose their job and be castigated on here.

    Not a fan of Pete Townsend then? Nicely crowbarred in.
  • Just think it is interesting that a fare dodger gets pelters yet we have a couple of threads about going to see The Who.

    Would they go to see Gary Glitter?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!